Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
144x Filetype PDF File size 0.33 MB Source: files.eric.ed.gov
JSGE Vol. XV, No. 2, Winter 2004, pp. 70–79. Copyright ©2004 Prufrock Press, P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714
The Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education
A Synthesis of Research
on Psychological Types
of Gifted Adolescents
Ugur Sak
University of Arizona
In this study, the author synthesizes results of studies about personality types of gifted adolescents. Fourteen studies were coded with
19 independent samples. The total number of identified participants in original studies was 5,723. The most common personality
types among gifted adolescents were “intuitive” and “perceiving.” They were higher on the Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, and
Perceiving dimensions of the personality scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) when compared to general high school
students. Also, gifted adolescents differed within the group by gender and by ability. Based on the findings, the author discusses teach-
ing practices for gifted students according to their personality preferences.
he personality characteristics of highly able youth have tions of perception and judgment. Ju n g’s theory differe n t i a t e s
been investigated extensively (Chiang, 1991; Cord re y, b e t wee n two typological categories: attitude-related types and
T1986; Ga l l a g h e r, 1987; Ge i g e r, 1992; Hawkins, 1997; f u n c t i o n - r elated types. Jung port r a yed the two attitude types in
Jackson, 1989; McCarthy, 1975; McGinn, 1976; Mills, 1984, terms of directions or orientations in behaviors and intere s t s
Mills & Parker, 1998). In these studies, gifted adolescents were of people tow a rd the material world. These orientations bring
found to be different from the general adolescent population, about two attitude types: extraversion and introversion.
as well as different among themselves in personality types as In relation to the extraversion-introversion dimension, the
m e a s u r ed by the Mye r s - Briggs Type Indicator (MBT I ) . relationship between individual and environment is to be
Personality dimensions have also been shown to be associated i n ves tigated. Ex t r a ve rted types develop a strong awareness of
with academic achievement and intelligence. For instance, their environment for stimulation. The typical extrave rt has a
Myers (1980) asserted that the possibility of one’s being intu- s t rong propensity to influence others, but is likely to be influ-
i t i v e- introve rted increases as academic giftedness incre a s e s . enced by others, as well. Ex t r a ve rts usually seem confident,
One might anticipate, then, that a high introve rt or intuitive accessible, and expansive in the manner in which they build
type may be related to high intellectual capacity and high aca- relationships with others (Jung, 1971; Lawrence, 1984; Spoto,
demic achievement in one or more areas. 1995). In t rove rts, on the contrary, are somewhat more inde-
pendent and idea-oriented than the extrave rts, as they usually
get their excitement from the inner world. They may some-
Psychological Type Theory times seem lost in thought or maybe somewhat inaccessible in
the way they move around the world (Lawrence; Spoto).
In the 1920s, Jung developed the theory of psyc h o l o g i c a l The second typological category, function-related types,
types to elucidate natural differences in human behaviors. He refers to the specific manner or means of adaptation that pro-
postulated that apparently random behaviors of an individual duces a consciously differentiated psychological function. Jung
could be understood in terms of his or her use of the func- put forw a rd four possible functions: “sensation, intuition,
70
Psychological Types of Gifted Adolescents
thinking, and feeling” (Spoto, 1995, p. 33). Jung used “judg- types more than general high school students do. For instance,
i n g” to describe the polarity of thinking-feeling dimensions, re s e a rch ers (De l b r i d g e - Pa rker & Robinson, 1989; Ga l l a g h e r,
which reflects an individual’s preference between two different 1990; Hoehn & Bi re l e y, 1988) re p o rted that about 50% or
types of judgment. Feeling types usually value harmony and m o re of the gifted population is introve rted compared to the
human relationships in their judgments. They make decisions general population, whose pre f e rence for introversion is 25%.
s u b j e c t i v ely with a consideration of society’s values. On the Si l verman (1985) found that 34% of 61 graduate students we re
other hand, Jung (1971) designated “t h i n k i n g” as an opposite e x t r a ve r ts, while 66% we re introve rts. Howe ve r, some other
function to “feeling.” In contrast to feeling types, thinking studies have revealed different results about gifted adolescents’
types emphasize logic and objectivity in reasoning. This pre f- p re f e rences on the extrave r s i o n - i n t roversion dimension. Fo r
e rence suppresses values and uses impersonal feelings in deci- example, Williams (1992) found that extrave rts we re more
sion making (Spoto). f r equent than introve rts in the gifted population. Ye t ,
Jung (1971) believed that “sensation and intuition” consti- C s i k s zentmihalyi (1997) has argued that cre a t i ve people have
tuted two perceiving types. Sensing types rely mostly on the both traits at the same time, while the general population tends
five senses while they perceive information, which makes them to be one or the other.
factual and observant. Sensing types usually approach a pro b- Research also reveals that most gifted adolescents are intu-
lem in a carefully deliberate way; hence, they perc e i ve appar- i t i v e, as opposed to the general population, most of whom
ent aspects of the issue (Jung; Lawrence, 1984; Spoto, 1995). (70%) prefer sensing (Ga l l a g h e r, 1990; Hawkins, 1997; Ho e h n
Spoto stated that, unlike sensing types, intuitive types look at & Bi re l e y, 1988; Mills, 1983; Myers & Mc C a u l l e y, 1985a,
things holistically and critically to get a sense of the whole over 1985b; Ol s zew s k i - Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989; Williams, 1992).
the parts; hence, they are usually imaginative, speculative, and Since intuitive types are better at abstraction, symbols, theory,
analytical, and they can be more cre a t i ve. They are able to see and possibilities, they outperform sensing types on aptitude
abstract, theoretical, and global relationships. tests. For example, when MBTI types of 3,503 high school
Mo re ove r, Myers extended Ju n g’s theory, adding a perc e i v- male students in a college-pre p a r a t o ry curriculum we re com-
ing-judging polarity, which she considered to be connected with p a r ed with the students’ IQ scores, all intuitive types had
the extraversion and introversion polarity (Spoto, 1995). Ju d g i n g higher scores than sensing types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985b).
and perceiving refer to the process a person uses in dealing with Also, De l b r i d g e - Pa rker and Robinson examined the MBT I
the outer world. A judging type is well organized, systematic, and p re f e r ences of 72 gifted junior high students who we re final-
o r derly and has a planned way of life, while a perception type is ists in the Duke Talent Identification Program and found that
spontaneous, re c e p t i ve, and understanding and has a flexible way the gifted students showed strong pre f e rences for intuition
of life (Myers & Mc C a u l l e y, 1985a). (75%).
Fu rt h e r m o re, thinking and feeling functions seem to va ry
in the pre f e rences of gifted adolescents. Bi reley (1991) has
Giftedness and Psychological Type asserted that gender and age can explain some of this variance.
For example, most females tend to prefer feeling in their judg-
Myers and McCaulley (1985b) proposed that psyc h o l o g i- ments, while most males prefer thinking. Also, developmental
cal type is related to aptitude and achievement. People who t ren ds in thinking can bring about differences. For example,
p re f e r red introversion and intuition showed greater academic Bi reley stated that the adolescent movement tow a rd the more
aptitude than those who pre f e r red extraversion and sensing. logical and objective style may re flect the shift from a feeling to
Thinking types are thought to be better at some tasks that a thinking type. Se veral studies have demonstrated distribu-
re q u i r e logical analysis, while feeling types are better at tasks tions of pre f e rences of gifted adolescents on the thinking-feel-
that re q u i re understanding of human relations. Mo re ove r, ing scale. For instance, Hoehn and Bi reley (1988) found that
Myers and McCaulley found that judging types perform bet- 67.5% of their gifted sample pre f e r red feeling, while there we re
ter on applications, which are thought to be related to higher i m p o r tant differences between elementary and secondary stu-
grades, while perceiving types outperform judging types on d e n t s’ personality types. Most elementary students pre f e r re d
aptitude measures. There f o re, it might be hypothesized that feeling, while most secondary students preferred thinking.
gifted adolescents should prefer introve rt e d - i n t u i t i ve thinking In addition, re s e a rchers (Ga l l a g h e r, 1990; Hawkins, 1997;
types, as they are precocious in intellectual deve l o p m e n t . Hoehn & Bi re l e y, 1988; Mills, 1984; Myers & Mc C a u l l e y,
Howe ve r, their pre f e rence for judging-perceiving can show 1985b; Williams, 1992) have re p o rted that gifted learners gen-
more variance. erally have a stronger pre f e renc e for perceiving over judging.
Although gifted adolescents demonstrate all personality Howe ve r, the Atlas of Type Tables (Ma c Daid, Kainz, &
types as measured by the MBTI, they tend to prefer cert a i n Mc C a u l l e y, 1986) indicates that most of the general population
Winter 2004, Volume XV, Number 2 71
Sak
p refers judging. Pi i rto (1990) found that 95% of 50 cre a t i ve ado- Method
lescents we re intuitive - p e rc e p t i ve. De l b r i d g e - Pa rker and
Robinson (1989) compared type pre f e rences of 72 gifted junior Sample
high students to those of 1,001 National Merit Finalists and
found that the percentage of the types in both groups we re alike. Original studies constituted the sample in this re s e a rc h
Myers and McCaulley (1985b) stated that, because perc e p t i ve synthesis (the studies included in the re s e a rch synthesis are
types are more open to new information, they score higher on m a rked with an asterisk in the re f e rences). These studies we re
aptitude measures, whereas judging types can be slightly higher re p o r ted in published articles, books, technical re p o rts, and
in grades because they are well organized and focused. unpublished dissertations and re p o rts related to psyc h o l o g i c a l
types of gifted adolescents as measured by the MBTI (see Ta b l e
1). Fourteen studies with 19 independent samples were coded.
Rationale for the Research Synthesis The reason for including unpublished re s e a rch was to avo i d
missing valuable data. The norm group was composed of high
T h e re have been many studies about personality charac- school students in 11th and12th grades. Data for the norm
teristics of gifted adolescents. A substantial number of these g roup we re adapted from the Atlas of Type Tables (Ma c Da i d ,
studies used the MBTI as a tool to explore personality types of Kainz, & McCaulley, 1986).
p recocious youth. Although the findings of most studies are
s i m i l a r, some re s e a rchers found somewhat different re s u l t s Data Collection
about personality pre f e rences of gifted adolescents in some
scales of the MBTI. In addition to differing results, the type The literature review was done by means of the online ver-
of data re p o rte d in original studies varies. Although some of the sion of the Educational Re s o u rce Information Center (ERIC)
studies used just percentiles, others used continuous score s and D i s s e rtation Ab s t racts In t e r n a t i o n a l. Cu r re n t l y, ERIC con-
and self-selection ratio to re p o rt data. The studies also tains either abstracts, full texts of studies, or both indexed fro m
e m p l oye d different base populations or norm groups ava i l a b l e 1966 to the present. Keywords used in the search with various
in the manual of the MBTI and in the Atlas of Type Ta b l e s . combinations weregifted, talented, personality, personality char-
This caused va rying results in the difference between the psy- acteristics, personality types, psychological types, Myers-Briggs Type
chological types of the gifted adolescents and the general high In d i c a t o r , and M BT I . Four hundred and twe l ve studies either
school population. There f o re, lack of unity among pro c e s s e s in full-text or in abstract format we re found. After an exami-
and findings of the studies have caused difficulties in inter- nation of each abstract, 63 studies we re selected for furt h e r
p reting the results. Another problem arises from studies not re v i e w. The rest of the studies we re excluded from furt h e r
re p o rting enough data by ability level, sex, age, and grade of the i n vestigation for three possible reasons: They we re completely
p a r ticipants, even though it is well known that these va r i a b l e s irrelevant to this research, they did not use the MBTI, or they
help us to understand better the diversity of the gifted popula- were not original research.
tion. After 63 studies we re obtained, including articles, re p o rt s ,
T h e re f o re, an integration of the findings of these studies is books, and dissertations, they we re coded in identification forms
essential to understanding the psychological types of gifted ado- for further re v i ew, which indicated that only 14 of them had
lescents. The purpose of this study was to empirically inve s t i g a t e enough data for inclusion. Each study had to re p o rt either the
personality types specific to gifted adolescents as measured by number of participants falling into each type, the eight basic per-
the MBTI. This investigation invo l ved re s e a rch integration for sonality types of the participants, or both to be included in this
the purpose of creating generalizations in four dimensions of the re s e a r ch synthesis. The 14 studies yielded 19 independent sam-
eight basic types—Ex t r a ve r s i o n - In t roversion (EI), Se n s i n g - ples because some of them had more than one sample. Also, mul-
Intuition (SN), Thinking-Feeling (TF), and Ju d g i n g - Pe rc e i v i n g tiple studies by an author we re carefully re v i ewed to avo i d
(JP)—and in 16 personality types, which re p resent combina- duplication in the synthesis. When sample characteristics
tions of the basic types: ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTP, ISFP, matched in different studies by an author that we re published in
I N F P, INTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, ENTP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, d i f f e rent journals and at different times, the one that had more
and ENTJ. The following questions guided this study. data about findings and sample characteristics was included in the
1. How do psychological types of gifted adolescents differ synthesis. Only two studies of one author (Mills, 1984; Mills &
f r om those of the general high school students as measure d Pa rk e r, 1998) we re included because there we re 14 years betwe e n
by the MBTI? these two studies and the sample characteristics we re signific a n t l y
2. How do psychological types of gifted adolescents differ d i f f e r ent. The 19 samples we re then coded in sample character-
among themselves as measured by the MBTI? istics forms and type distributions forms for inclusion.
72 The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education
Psychological Types of Gifted Adolescents
Table 1 comparison gro u p. Conceptually, it is the ratio of the observe d
Sources of the Coded Studies f r equency to the expected fre q u e n c y. If the index is greater than
1.00, there are more participants in that type than expected
f r om their numbers in the base population. On the other hand,
Source Sample* Study** Sample % continuous scores are a linear transformation of pre f e re n c e
Journal 5 3 26 s c o res such that the midpoint is established at 100 and pre f e r-
Doctoral dissertation 7 5 37 ence scores for E, S, T, and J are subtracted from 100, while
Book 4 4 21 p re f e rence scores for I, N, F, and P, are added to 100.
Unpublished report 3 2 16 For this study, statistical integration of the data was done
t h r ough a pooling technique as opposed to the traditional
Total 19 14 100 e f f e c t - s i z e model (Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Glass, 1976; Gl a s s ,
McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Rosenthal, 1978) because most stud-
Note. * Number of samples taken from each source; ** Number of studies taken from each source. ies either did not provide any comparative data or did not
re p o rt enough data to estimate effect sizes. First, the number of
participants of the studies in a particular type was pooled. This
Coding Forms and Code Book
p ro c e d u re was carried out for each type. This resulted in the
In order to code studies, the author developed several cod- total number of participants falling into each type. Then, fre-
ing forms and a code book. The code book provided informa- quencies we re distributed across the types according to subjects’
tion necessary to code data from primary studies into coding g e n d e r, age, and ability level. The number of subjects in each
forms. It contains names, labels, and code values of the va r i- type was divided by the total subjects, and the result was mul-
ables in data sets and explains abbreviations. There we re thre e tiplied by 100. This provided the percentage of subjects in each
major coding forms used in this study: identification, sample type by total group, age, gender, and ability level.
characteristics, and type distributions. In order to test statistical significances, the z-test of statis-
The identification form helped to identify whether or not tical significance was employed at the p < .05 significance lev-
a study would be further investigated and included in the els. The z- value was obtained for each basic type re p o rted for
re s e a rch synthesis. The initial 63 studies we re coded using these the samples used in the studies and weighted in order to test
forms. The following pieces of information we re coded: an statistical significance between groups. In addition to compar-
identification number for each study, year of publication, isons between the gifted population and the general high
author(s), title of the study, source of data, and a decision of school population and comparisons within the gifted popula-
whether or not the study was to be coded furt h e r, and reason for tion by gender and ability, this integration also provided a
not coding if the study was to be excluded (Rosenthal, 1978), gifted base population or a gifted norm group by means of the
and date of coding. Also, sample characteristics we re coded as pooling technique.
age, grade, sex, and ability level, with specific domains coded
as verbal and math through using a sample characteristics forms. Instrument
This section was completed for each sample re p o rted in each
s t u d y. The last of the coding forms was type distributions. It The MBTI is a forced-choice, self-re p o rt inve n t o ry that
helped to code findings of each study according to the person- discriminates among dimensions of personality types as
ality types that characterize each sample. All data, the perc e n t- described by the theory of Carl Jung (Devito, 1989; Myers &
age of each type in a sample, and the number of subjects Mc C a u l l e y, 1985a; Spoto, 1995). The purpose of the MBT I
p referring each type we re coded. The 19 samples extracted fro m is to identify people’s basic preferences in relation to their per-
the final 14 studies we re coded using these last two forms. ceptions and judgments. It generates four dichotomous pre f-
e r ences or eight basic personality types: EI (Ex t r a ve r s i o n -
Data Analysis Introversion), SN (Sensing-Intuition), TF (Thinking-Feeling),
and JP (Ju d g i n g - Pe rception). Combinations of these 8 types
The MBTI provides three methods to re p o rt data and yield 16 personality types.
extract meaning from these data: percentile scores, self-selection The EI index illustrates whether a person is extrave rt (E)
index or self-selection ratio, and continuous scores. The MBT I or introve rt (I). The SN index shows one’s pre f e rence for
p e rce ntile scores indicate the pro p o rtion of people in a sample either sensing (S) or intuition (N). The TF index indicates
who prefer a particular MBTI personality type. The self-selec- o n e’s pre f e rences for either thinking (T) or feeling (F). The
tion index (SSI) compares the number or percentage of part i c i- JP index illustrates one’s pre f e rence for either judging (J ) o r
pants in a type to those in the base population or in a p e rce iving (P).
Winter 2004, Volume XV, Number 2 73
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
